Re: [sieve] SIEVE WG Status

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> I think these drafts were past AUTH48 when I stopped them from being
>> published (due to the reference to draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists). So the
>> RFC Editor should be told that we want to review/fix examples before
>> publishing.
>
> They are all showing in "EDIT" now. But I already let the RFC Editor know
> that they are no longer on AD hold, so you may want to email them to check
> on status.

So emailed.

>>> If the WG does shut down, it seems reasonable for any of these drafts to
>>> continue on as individual contributions.
>>
>> Does our esteemed AD agree?
>
> Your humble and curmudgeonly AD is going to ask lots of questions about what
> kind of review (both small and IETF-wide) these documents are going to get
> before he is thrilled out of his mind to take them on as individual
> submissions through the AD and declare them "consensus documents". If you
> can't generate interest in getting them reviewed in a WG, I'm not entirely
> convinced how you're going to get enough review without one. And I hate
> dealing with individual submission documents, especially if I've got to do
> all of the legwork to get them reviewed.

I agree with Pete: we should make every effort to keep the WG open to
work on them.  If we can't do that, then we clearly don't have enough
interest to do them outside the WG.  In that case, they could go to
the ISE, and come out as informational, describing a planned
standardization that didn't happen.

I hope it doesn't come to that, and that we can have enough enthusiasm
left to finish them here.

Barry